There are rules about the exhaust. The exhaust can only use the outer ports of the V6 engine and all cylinders must exhaust into one turbocharger/MGUH assembly. You can also expect the current rules against exhaust blown diffusors to carry forward. Different to the Le Mans Audi 3.7L TDI variable geometry turbines are prohibited.

There are rules about the exhaust. The exhaust can only use the outer ports of the V6 engine and all cylinders must exhaust into one turbocharger/MGUH assembly. You can also expect the current rules against exhaust blown diffusors to carry forward. Different to the Le Mans Audi 3.7L TDI variable geometry turbines are prohibited.

thanks. Kinda badly writhen those rules then as its most likely a more neat packaging solution.

Did not know about the ban on variable geometry. Makes things a tiny bit more challenging for the manufacturers.

thanks. Kinda badly writhen those rules then as its most likely a more neat packaging solution.

Did not know about the ban on variable geometry. Makes things a tiny bit more challenging for the manufacturers.

The rules also specify that the turbo unit must be mounted wih its axis parallel to the engine's crankshaft centreline, in a box behind the engine, no more than 50mm (IIRC) horizontally from the centreline.

"ERS-H is very challenging, because the motor generator will run roughly at three times the [KERS] current speed..." explains Dalla, resulting in Magneti Marelli starting from scratch in this regard.

"We are investigating two different solutions," he says. "One in which ERS-H is on the cold side of the turbo; the other with the motor generator staying in the middle, between the hot and cold side. We are developing both solutions. You can understand both have peculiar characteristics, but in particular the version in which the motor generator is in the middle, in terms of temperature, in terms of stress, we think we face a challenging situation.

"[Another] aspect that we are strongly convinced will work in the future is being able to drive the turbo with an electrical motor and not through the flow dynamics of the exhaust...

"In the regulations there is a direct connection between the -H and the -K without any [regulatory] limit. I'm sure this will be an area where all teams will do their development, because it will be out of limit, and, based on that, we have developed benches in order to enable the two devices to talk to each other."

I found it interesting that they were talking about driving the compressor purely electronically. I thought that the rules required that the compressor and turbine be directly linked. At first I though there would be no exhaust energy recovery, but then I realised that the turbine could do that independently.

Also interesting is the reference to no limits on exhaust energy recovered.

This looks likely to be a major area of development. The power expected is, at the moment, 90kW:

The units will have a combined output of approximately 210kW, being split 120kW (-K) and 90 (-H). The former will feed directly into a four megajoule energy-storage device – likely batteries, although supercapacitors (as per Toyota's Le Mans system) or flywheels (Flybrid, Williams Hybrid Power) cannot be excluded. The ERS-H output, meanwhile, can be channelled to an electric motor to spool the turbo to reduce lag, directly to the wheels, or into a storage system.

I found it interesting that they were talking about driving the compressor purely electronically. I thought that the rules required that the compressor and turbine be directly linked. At first I though there would be no exhaust energy recovery, but then I realised that the turbine could do that independently.

Also interesting is the reference to no limits on exhaust energy recovered.

He did not say that compressor can be driven electrically, he was talking about the turbocharger.If I understand the rules correctly, the amount of the energy stored in the energy storage system is limited to 2MJ per lap or 4MJ overall, but you can also direct the energy from the MGUH to the MGUK without storing it. So I think that this is the reference to the “out of limit”

I wish they had a flux diagramm in the new rules, which would make it a lot easier to understand. Could not find it though

If the turbine is being spun by an electric motor it can't be recovering energy from the exhaust.

Yes, if you use the electric motor for revving up the turbocharger, you can not recuperate energy at the same time.But looking at the transient engine operation, it would make sense to rev up the turbocharger electrically until it reaches a proper operating range, then instead of opening a wastegate you could recuperate the energy overrun with the electric motor and pass this energy directly to the MGUK (which seems not to be limited)

I'm pretty sure that the turbine and the compressor are on the same shaft. Just compare the remarks from Dalla about the location of the MGUH which is located between the turbine and the compressor or outside of the compressor according to his statement. That reference only makes sense if you have one common shaft.

Spooling the turbocharger with the MGUH in motor mode would not interfere with maximizing the electricity generation. When the compressor needs spooling up there would not be sufficient turbine power to generate anyway. Otherwise you would use this energy to spool the compressor.

Dalla hints that it could be driven by an electric motor in the future. I think he is talking about something else.

It would make sense to me to separate the turbine and compressor at some point. The compressor could be then driven electrically to give the optimum boost at all times, while the turbine would be controlled to optimise uts energy recovery.

Having had (in previous job) a fair amount of experience in the development and analysis of high performance turbo engines a number of conclusions can be drawn about this 53mm stroke 80mm bore 90° V6:

Efficiency is everything given the fuel flow restriction (100kg/hr above 10500rpm). If you want maximum power you need to chase after efficiency, so forget a lot of what is "common knowledge" about how to make racing turbo engines, and expect a lot of armchair experts to come to the wrong conclusions.

Peak power is pretty much independent of speed once you have full fuel flow (above 10500rpm), though power drops off with higher rpm due to increasing engine friciton. So the engine swill be designed to run in a narrow range of rpm above 10500.

With an 8 speed gearbox spanning a speed range of 100-300km/hr you only need to run from 10500-12000rpm to cover your speed range. So these engines will be redlining at just over 12000rpm, most definitely not the 15000rpm of the rules.

Turbocompounding will be used but only as an ancilliary feature to a Miller Cycle (late inlet valve close so that expansion stroke over-expands). Miller cycle is key because it increase the engine efficiency and crankshaft power output, on top of which you will still have a 120kW KERs boost. So above all you want the energy recovery in the engine (Miller Cycle) rather than via turbocompounding. Miller cycle is likely to be more efficient at recovering that excess exhaust energy than the turbine anyway, and it will reduce the mass and size of the turbocompounding motor-generator and associated electronics.

The engine will also be run quite lean to give greater efficiency. In combination with miller cycle this will give max power output of 445-465kW at the crankshaft (BSFC 215-225g/kWh) compared to the 425kW that you might get from a lean burning conventional turbo with about 235g/kWh (if you can get your turbo to handle the extremely high exhaust temperatures).

With Miller Cycle the exhaust will be quite cool and the boost will need to be about 3-4 bar, the turbo will be more like what is found in a diesel, optimised for peak efficiency in a very narrow range of output without concern about making light weight compressor and turbine wheels for turbo-lag. The turbo motor-generator will eliminate any turbo lag and recover any excess energy as well as driving the turbo and dumping excess compressed air in conditions where surge might otherwise occur (ie accelerating off the line).

The banning of hot-side in is absolutely stupid given single turbo, many manufacturers are moving to hot side in V anyway. Short exhaust runners are key to getting maximum turbine exhaust energy recovery (the blowdown pulse as the valves crack open is where much of the turbine energy comes from) so it is quite likely that the runners will loop over the head to a turbocharger in the V rather than around the back as most pundits are picking. The exhaust ports might be put between the camshafts (just to outside of bore centreline) to make this even better.

<edit: boost pressure was 4-5bar absolute, changed to more common 3-4bar gauge>

Turbocompounding will be used but only as an ancilliary feature to a Miller Cycle (late inlet valve close so that expansion stroke over-expands). Miller cycle is key because it increase the engine efficiency and crankshaft power output, on top of which you will still have a 120kW KERs boost. So above all you want the energy recovery in the engine (Miller Cycle) rather than via turbocompounding. Miller cycle is likely to be more efficient at recovering that excess exhaust energy than the turbine anyway, and it will reduce the mass and size of the turbocompounding motor-generator and associated electronics.

90kW is being talked about as the exhaust energy recovery. What will it be in the Miller Cycle?

The banning of hot-side in is absolutely stupid given single turbo, many manufacturers are moving to hot side in V anyway. so it is quite likely that the runners will loop over the head to a turbocharger in the V rather than around the back as most pundits are picking.

from Wuzak [post 4]

"The rules also specify that the turbo unit must be mounted wih its axis parallel to the engine's crankshaft centreline, in a box behind the engine, no more than 50mm (IIRC) horizontally from the centreline."

I havn't read the rules , but there appears to be a contradiction here

"The rules also specify that the turbo unit must be mounted wih its axis parallel to the engine's crankshaft centreline, in a box behind the engine, no more than 50mm (IIRC) horizontally from the centreline."

I havn't read the rules , but there appears to be a contradiction here

Even with this Box behind the engine you could perhaps shorten the exhaust pipes by going up and into the turbo as suggested ny Foyle. (exellent post btw)

But i doubt we will se something like that until they allow the manufacturers to put the turbo unit where they want.

It could give the DI a sub optimum position. (assuming next to the spark plug is optimum)

Hey Foyle
interesting post My questions:
the first one would be the same as the one WhiteBlue asked: variable valve systems are not permitted, which means that you would have to use the Miller cycle over the entire operating range. Depending on the turbocharger design, you will lose power in a certain range, plus you are not allowed to use a supercharger, which would be the best option for the Miller cycle (as far as I know).

Secondly, how do you think, will the boost of 3-4bar be achieved, since Miller cycle over-expands and therefore less exhaust energy is available?

How often do we have to talk about the rule making power in F1. It is never done by the FiA alone. They actually have very little power compared to the F1 commission where the teams and Ecclestone are calling the shots. In the case of the engines it certainly wasn't the desire of the FiA to come up with a narrow spec. One can easily see that by comparing the 2014 WEC/LMP1 and the F1 rules. Both are now fuel limited.

The WEC rules were made together with the ACO and are very liberal. You can have any displacement, number of cylinders, turbo design, boost pressure or rpm that you want. The dimensions, the weight, the engine mounting pattern, the centre of gravity, the materials and hundreds other parameters are all free to choose for the LMP1 designer.

The F1 rules were done with the F1 commission and are very restrictive. Many in the commission thought that a narrow spec would keep the development cost down and that was the reason for going that way. As it turns out stifling the development by narrow specs will not save any cost. The engine manufacturers will still spend whatever they have even if the scope is quite narrow. Only resource/budget restrictions will achieve cost control. So we will end up with an unnecessary narrow spec and not by the intentions of the FiA. The FiA largely rubber stamps only the compromises that are reached in the commission by the teams.

It should be fairly obvious why the engine configuration is so tightly regulated - to stop teams from spending too much in R&D chasing other layouts.

My first thoughts are similar to Foyle but he (or she) is clearly well-versed in turbocharged units where I'm used to working with NA powerplants. I was unaware, for instance, that you want the blowdown pulse to interact with the turbo inlet. That's useful to know

Hey Foyleinteresting post My questions:the first one would be the same as the one WhiteBlue asked: variable valve systems are not permitted, which means that you would have to use the Miller cycle over the entire operating range. Depending on the turbocharger design, you will lose power in a certain range, plus you are not allowed to use a supercharger, which would be the best option for the Miller cycle (as far as I know).

Secondly, how do you think, will the boost of 3-4bar be achieved, since Miller cycle over-expands and therefore less exhaust energy is available?

These engines will be doing almost all of their power production in a narrow rpm range, and probably only running outside of that range off the line up to 100km/hr where they are traction limited anyway. They don't need variable valve timing, though there is potential to build in some effects similar to valve variability using your inlet and exhaust runners.

I did some rough calculations and it does look like there is more than enough exhaust energy, particularly give high-efficiency diesel engine like compressor and turbines. In fact there is likely to be a slight pressure drop from inlet to exhaust which is great for improved scavenging using valve overlap to get a cooler air charge. If you have a positive pressure ratio across the engine then more valve overlap can help to get a bit more mass flow through the compressor and turbine at lower engine speeds to reduce surge and lag. The Miller Cycle has a choice of how far it is taken - ie how much energy is left over from the turbine for putting power into the turbocompounding generator vs energy put into the compressor. There are so many factors to consider that I am not sure how that balance will work out, you need some turbocompounding energy for supercharging off the line and anti-lag, but it could be that almost all energy is put into compressing the air further. However single stage compressor efficiency drops off at high compression ratios and they don't work that well beyond about 4-5 bar boost.

A Miller Cycle is in many ways like an intercooled Gas Turbine, where you reduce the total compression energy required by splitting the compression process in half and cooling the air in between them. Miller Cycle pushes this process towards a much more efficient split (more turbo compression less piston) and allows you to reach a higher overall engine compression ratio for the same peak compression temp. (That peak temp is the limit in SI engines due to auto ignition and detonation), but the overall higher compression ratio achieved also gives you higher engine efficiency.

The higher compression ratio in the compressor also means higher compressor outlet temp so even though your intercooler is dumping more heat energy the bigger temp differential and higher pressure means it probably doesn't need to grow physically.

There is another factor that will likely come into play and that is the achievable compression ratio in the cylinder. V8 F1 engines run at about 14:1 (I believe) with strokes around 40mm, It will be hard to do much more than that and Miller Cycle engines frequently run at similar geometric compression ratios, but for F1 would probably like to run even higher. Lower speeds, longer stroke (53mm) smaller valve lift and less piston acceleration may make it possible to increase the compression ratio slightly but probably not to more than 16.

As others have noted you do effectively have a supercharger, for brief spurts using the turbo-compounding motor/generator.

I saw no restrictions in rules on location of turbocharger, but I may have missed something.

Incidentally the Miller Cycle engine will have a lot less exhaust noise having expanded the exhaust more before opening the valves. That and the low rpm and smaller cylinder count may not be popular with fans of F1 engine noise.

Anyway, without doing a lot of analysis I don't think I can really offer much more to this that isn't wild speculation.

How often do we have to talk about the rule making power in F1. It is never done by the FiA alone. They actually have very little power compared to the F1 commission where the teams and Ecclestone are calling the shots.

Who do you think 'owns' the F1 Commission (and the other sporting commissions come to that)? They are part of the FIA - effectively the World Motor Sport Council is the FIA's motorsport committee, and the F1 Commission is the sub-committee that deals with F1.

Who do you think 'owns' the F1 Commission (and the other sporting commissions come to that)? They are part of the FIA - effectively the World Motor Sport Council is the FIA's motorsport committee, and the F1 Commission is the sub-committee that deals with F1. So it is all and entirely the FIA.

Sure, the FiA owns the sport and technically the F1 commission is an FiA organization. But that is not the issue here. We were talking about the responsibility for extremely narrow specs and restrictive technical regulations. Those who say the FiA is responsible are misleading the forum because they create the impression that there is an FiA policy steering F1 into the negative direction of spec engines and spec chassis. That is simply wrong. Other interesting parties have much stronger agendas and the clout to make such moves stick. The FiA objectives are safety, sustainability, fairness, affordability, diversity in motor sport and the promotion of the sport itself. Those are all good values and the current FiA leadership is arguably one of the best we ever had. Hence I do not like the constant FiA bashing that some users exercise here.

Yet it is that FIA leadership that is allowing these other parties to make the running. So ultimately it is their responsibility. If they didn't like the direction things are taking, they could change it.

Excellent points. Regulating fuel mass flow in an SI engine will solve most issues. SI engines will always make best power at close to stoichiometric conditions. But there are still ways to increase power with complex direct injection systems that improve the combustion heat release rates. The closer you can get to achieving true constant volume combustion conditions the more power the engine will produce.

Yet it is that FIA leadership that is allowing these other parties to make the running. So ultimately it is their responsibility. If they didn't like the direction things are taking, they could change it.

That is not true. The FiA are contractually bound by a series of Concord Agreements. The current agreement expires 31.12.2012. Every Concord Agreement including the current one imposes the supremacy of the F1 commission and prohibits the WMSC or the FiA president to set rules except for certain safety issues. The WMSC can only approve or - under certain conditions - reject F1 commission proposals for rules.

Excellent points. Regulating fuel mass flow in an SI engine will solve most issues. SI engines will always make best power at close to stoichiometric conditions. But there are still ways to increase power with complex direct injection systems that improve the combustion heat release rates. The closer you can get to achieving true constant volume combustion conditions the more power the engine will produce.

slider

Actually Stoichiometric is too hot and results in more than optimum heat transfer to the cylinder, piston and heads. You actually get highest efficiencies at cooler relatively lean combustion (as is the case in all SI and Diesel engines).

Problem with creating a rule based entirely on fuel flow is that everyone would probably end up with low speed turbocharged 3 cylinder diesels, as they are the most efficient engines (45-50% efficiency possible compared to typical SI race engines of 30-35%) and their minimal number of cylinders reduces wall heat transfer. They would be cheap to produce, cheap to maintain and would last a season quite happily (and possibly multiple seasons), but they would not sound at all racy.

Perhaps you could allow that but mandate a powerful sound system on each car to simulate a high speed V12 engine?

It gets more complicated if they are allowed to trim the weight as well. If you lose 5% power by reducing the outer size of the engine (say a V4 engine ) XX% smaller the aero starts to play a role as you could reduce drag and improve downforce. Perhaps you get more space for batteries and such.

Various versions of prior concord agreements have this codified. It is very unlikely that the current agreement deviates from the past in that regard. In fact the history of the the new turbo engine introduction shows that it is still in place. Because the F1 commission had not passed the new engine proposal the FiA were forced to renegotiate the whole package in December 2010. They had to accept a compromise of the V6 and the delay to 2014 to get the approval of the F1 commission majority against Ecclestone and the promoters. The V6 compromise delivered Ferrari into their camp.

Foyle, you made me curious, so I ran a quick simulation (well, as quick as it can be) comparing the standard cycle and the Miller cycle. The outcome was not significantly better, but I have to add that I had to estimate the turbocharger maps. So if you can provide proper maps, I could start a new loop.

Foyle is a man after my own heart! I've read his analysis thoroughly and could almost swear we were unknowing colleagues...

ERS is a fairly new area for me, but I am familiar with electrically assisted turbochargers and what they're capable of. A couple of points I should highlight: Foyle's BSFC figure of 215-225 g/kWh corresponds to a BTE of 37-39% (assuming LHV of 43 MJ/kg), which would put it among the best figures of state-of-the-art Diesel engines. This is much better than achieved in the best turbocharged spray-guided gasoline DI engines @320-340 g/kWh at rated power. Granted, running the very high geometric expansion ratios proposed by Foyle and late intake valve closure would certainly improve the DI gasoline BSFC figure, but by how much? I think 215-225 g/kWh is a bit of a stretch based on current race-ready technology.

Stoichiometric mixtures, as Foyle said, yield very high EGTs - even despite Miller - that will easily burn exhaust valves and destroy turbos and pistons as well. What has not been discussed so far are the effects of the very high compression ratios, boost pressure and less than optimal charge cooling and laminar flame speed of stoic. mixtures on component temperatures and knocking - AFAIK the F1 fuel spec is not changing (SI engines run rich at max power precisely to mitigate the aforementioned issues). Running rich, as has been always done until now, will not make any sense for if true efficiency is the goal. Running lean will certainly help BSFC but will also ordinarily lengthen the combustion duration and you get to the dreaded thermal issues and knocking tendency all over again. This could of course be addressed by some form of charge stratification and ultra-fast burn combustion chamber designs. Knowing F1, what will likely happen is that they come up with some clever lambda strategy to run lean as much as possible but with short incursions into stoic. and rich conditions where absolute max. power is needed. During gear change and off-throttle operation, fuel would be almost- or completely cut-off to cool engine components in those brief instances. Conversely, since the rules only limit MAXIMUM fuel flow rate at any given time and RPM rather than maximum total fuel quantity per weekend (therefore it's not a true absolute efficiency rule but rather a power-limiting one), some smart-ass might actually exploit this and inject a dump of fuel during shifting and overrun but not ignite it with spark, thereby using the evaporating fuel to cool the engine internals. This will also act as a very effective anti-lag system for turbo spool-up when the driver gets back on the throttle and we'll again see spectacular flames and sounds out of the exhaust.

One other thing discussed superficially is intercooling. In an SI engine, especially with very high compression ratios, it is an imperative to have the lowest possible intake charge temperatures. Boosting to, say 4 bar absolute would raise the absolute temperature by a factor of 4^((gamma-1)/gamma), before even considering less-than-ideal compression. Ambient air at 30°C would be raised to 177°C under isentropic conditions; assuming 80% compressor isentropic efficiency, this would be further raised to 214°C. Where I'm getting at is that absolutely MAMMOTH heat exchangers would be required to bring the charge temperatures down to the minimum required for knock-free operation under the prevailing conditions dictated by the engine design.

In closing, I don't think we will see the BSFC values as low as Foyle predicts, at least in the first year of the new rules. I think we might see something more like 270... 240 g/kWh to start. However, just like the 20 years of F1 engine development prior to the recent homologation freezes saw a huge march upwards in engine RPM, so I think the 2014 rules will usher in an era of fast dropping BSFCs and all sorts of new and clever efficiency tricks and innovations being employed, so that gasoline engines will reach Diesel-like BSFCs and go further down in lockstep, in so doing both engine types becoming essentially indistinguishable in increasing areas of the base design and combustion process. In a some 20-odd minute interview Ulrich Baretzky, the guy behind Audi's Le Mans Diesel engines, mused that he'd love to cap his career taking everything learned from Diesel engines and applying them back to a new generation of direct-injected gasoline race engines (starting at minute 18 if you're too impatient to listen through the whole thing, although I do advise that you do).

A very similar two-entry turbine housing is also found in the Ford Scorpion V8 Diesel. The cold-side is a coaxial two-stage design, however, Garrett SST3266VJLN

The twin scroll design would be legal I think but the exhaust going out of the inside ports is a violation. The 2014 F1 engines must have the exhaust exiting from the outer ports if memory of the rules serves me right.

We often forget that one, if not the most important, aspects of motorsports is the development of new technologies. Pretty much every last bit of gadgetry, innovation and evolution that has been applied to your everyday road car has in some form or another trickled down from its original use in motorsports. From turbocharging and fuel injection (mechanical & electrical, indirect & direct) to automated gearboxes (single and double clutch) and everything in between has come to us thanks to the million of dollars of research and development and outright testing that manufacturers do along with their race teams. While further evolution may seem difficult considering how far the internal combustion engine and the motor car in general have come in the last 100+ years, there are still plenty of ideas worth exploring, especially seeing the pace at which hybrid and electric motor technology is advancing. And this is exactly why nerding out on some technical stuff now and again can really be exciting, especially when you can see the obvious links and potential that it can all have on future sports cars.

People say- and not without justification- that there is no longer any technological development relevant to road cars being done in motorsport. I see this as an artifact of creating technical regulations primarily designed with motorsport as a generic entertainment spectacle to sell in mind. The cars and technology are now seen as a necessary evil, expensive props needed to sell the sport to an unsophisticated public and nothing more. Technology is now considered something bad, a waste of potential profits, you want the customer to believe the product is high tech, without actually having it be high tech.

Motorsport was always part show business; now it is pure show business.

People say- and not without justification- that there is no longer any technological development relevant to road cars being done in motorsport. I see this as an artifact of creating technical regulations primarily designed with motorsport as a generic entertainment spectacle to sell in mind. The cars and technology are now seen as a necessary evil, expensive props needed to sell the sport to an unsophisticated public and nothing more. Technology is now considered something bad, a waste of potential profits, you want the customer to believe the product is high tech, without actually having it be high tech.

Motorsport was always part show business; now it is pure show business.

i.e. - more beepers , buzzers , and other bloody infuriating gadgets that hinder basic transportation from A-B [yes I just had a 'new and improved' hire car]

People say- and not without justification- that there is no longer any technological development relevant to road cars being done in motorsport. I see this as an artifact of creating technical regulations primarily designed with motorsport as a generic entertainment spectacle to sell in mind. The cars and technology are now seen as a necessary evil, expensive props needed to sell the sport to an unsophisticated public and nothing more. Technology is now considered something bad, a waste of potential profits, you want the customer to believe the product is high tech, without actually having it be high tech.

Motorsport was always part show business; now it is pure show business.

F1 rules have in fact been actively tightened on several occaisions in recent memory - specifically to eliminate development directions which may have had useful real world spin-offs eg:- CVT- Rotary valves- Direct injection- High pressure injection- Al-Be pistons

Just read an article about Button's views on initial F1 testing. This bit had me confused:

"Winter testing is going to be hilarious in Jerez," said Button, who has tried the 2014 McLaren in the team's simulator.

"It will be cold, the tyres aren't going to work, the cars probably won't work either and when you do get a lap it is probably going to feel weird because you are running higher gears - you get into eighth gear before you get to seventh gear now.